UN official voices deep concern as Hamas raids offices of aid groups - Polidicks

[QUOTE=starpluck;22584442]Are you fucking seriously confused. It's the other way around. I'd be the one doing all that.[/QUOTE] No, you'd just have to find one blockade that does distinguish between military and civilians. IT could be the first one you look through (and maybe you even know of one specifically). For me, I'd have to go through all blockades in human history, that is impossible. And if it was, then consider me done, I have looked through all blockades in human history and have found that none distinguished between civilians and military. So until you prove me otherwise, I am correct. [QUOTE=starpluck;22584442]Uh it's called being human. You're telling me starving a population is moral because according to laws you can?[/QUOTE] Not breaking international law =\= Nothing to fix except for the law itself maybe.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22584498]No, you'd just have to find one blockade that does distinguish between military and civilians. IT could be the first one you look through (and maybe you even know of one specifically). For me, I'd have to go through all blockades in human history, that is impossible. And if it was, then consider me done, I have looked through all blockades in human history and have found that none distinguished between civilians and military. So until you prove me otherwise, I am correct.[/quote] Did you forget what you said? You said there's no such blockade that DOES NOT distinguish between civilian and military. THEREFORE find me one. It's the other way around dude. [quote]Not breaking international law =\= Nothing to fix except for the law itself maybe.[/QUOTE] No. Law is not perfect. Law doesn't define morality.

[QUOTE=starpluck;22584663]Did you forget what you said? You said there's no such blockade that DOES NOT distinguish between civilian and military. THEREFORE find me one. It's the other way around dude. [/QUOTE] Just so I get this clear: you want me to find a blockade that doesn't distinguish between civilians and military? [QUOTE=starpluck;22584663]No. Law is not perfect. Law doesn't define morality.[/QUOTE] Law is not perfect and that is why it's always subject to change. However, if for example I did action Y, and after a few days the law was changed so that action Y is illegal, I can't be punished for it, since I committed the action when it was legal. So until the blockade isn't considered illegal, it is considered legal.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22584730]Just so I get this clear: you want me to find a blockade that doesn't distinguish between civilians and military? [/quote] You said that there's no such blockade that distinguishes between civilian and military, so I'm asking, give me one blockade that does that. [quote] Law is not perfect and that is why it's always subject to change. However, if for example I did action Y, and after a few days the law was changed so that action Y is illegal, I can't be punished for it, since I committed the action when it was legal. So until the blockade isn't considered illegal, it is considered legal.[/QUOTE] Yeah I said, just because Israel is not a signatory of the Geneva convention doesn't make the blockade 'right'. And if you're going to tell me the blockade is 'right', morally, then you'd a sick [B]hypocritical[/B] human being.

[QUOTE=starpluck;22584893]You said that there's no such blockade that distinguishes between civilian and military, so I'm asking, give me one blockade that does that.[/QUOTE] How can I give you a blockade that distinguishes between civilians and military if I am claiming that there's no such thing???? If you're the one claiming there is such thing, prove it by giving one example. If you can't, I win the argument. [QUOTE]Yeah I said, just because Israel is not a signatory of the Geneva convention doesn't make the blockade 'right'. And if you're going to tell me the blockade is 'right', morally, then you'd a sick [B]hypocritical[/B] human being.[/QUOTE] And I assume launching rockets at civilians is 'right' in your book? It is indeed legal because Israel isn't singed on the Geneva convention. If you have anything to complain about Israel and anything regarded the Geneva convention, is that it isn't a signatory of it. And until it is a signatory, you can't complain about anything that the convention restricts. Well you could, but it would be just stupid.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22585087]How can I give you a blockade that distinguishes between civilians and military if I am claiming that there's no such thing???? If you're the one claiming there is such thing, prove it by giving one example. If you can't, I win the argument.[/QUOTE]You said out of all the current blockades in the world they DO NOT distinguish between civilian and military. Can you give me at least ONE current blockade that does not distinguish between civilian and military. I'm not asking for a blockade that DOES. Is it that hard? That's not proving a negative. [quote] And I assume launching rockets at civilians is 'right' in your book? It is indeed legal because Israel isn't singed on the Geneva convention. If you have anything to complain about Israel and anything regarded the Geneva convention, is that it isn't a signatory of it. And until it is a signatory, you can't complain about anything that the convention restricts. Well you could, but it would be just stupid.[/quote]Well guess what, as of June 5th the U.N High Commissioner for Human Rights just said the blockade is illegal. [URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6541JD20100605[/URL] [quote] "International humanitarian law prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and...it is also prohibited to impose collective punishment on civilians," Pillay said. [/quote]

[QUOTE=starpluck;22585444]You said out of all the current blockades in the world they DO NOT distinguish between civilian and military. Can you give me at least ONE current blockade that does not distinguish between civilian and military. I'm not asking for a blockade that DOES. Is it that hard? That's not proving a negative.[/QUOTE] Sure, here's one: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_blockade"]Blockade[/URL] [QUOTE]Well guess what, as of June 5th the U.N High Commissioner for Human Rights just said the blockade is illegal. [URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6541JD20100605[/URL][/QUOTE] Maybe, but he doesn't have the authority to do that, only the security council comes close to doing that, and even it is only a suggestive body and not a final authority (as in, even if it says the blockade is illegal, Israel still doesn't have to listen).

The blockade's bad, but there's really no viable alternative, unless you lot can come up with one. Seriously, if you can, that'd be great.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22566753]If I was in this situation I would appeal to the international community to help me and my people, WITHOUT acting violently against the occupying power, as that would just make me seem like a hypocrite and a terrorist.[/QUOTE] When the international community abandons you, like the UN has to Palestine... then what? for someone who preaches non-violence, you sure as hell support your countries violence. [editline]01:35AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22583956]It's not about ethics, everything I said in that post is about laws. As long as Hamas continues to fire rockets at Israel, it is considered to be an armed conflict and thus a blockade is justified.[/quote] And you never stop and wonder why lol [quote]And it's legal as long as the UN security council say otherwise. What kind of a blockade distinguish between military and civilians? There's no such thing.[/QUOTE] You consider that moral because of silence? You are a fucking horrible person.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22586702]Sure, here's one: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_blockade"]Blockade[/URL][/QUOTE] Don't be smart with me. A blockade besides the Gaza blockade. [quote] Maybe, but he doesn't have the authority to do that, only the security council comes close to doing that, and even it is only a suggestive body and not a final authority (as in, even if it says the blockade is illegal, Israel still doesn't have to listen).[/quote] Oh right. Right, Israel doesn’t have to listen to it, that however makes the Flotilla blockade buster legal.

[QUOTE=Warhol;22592417]When the international community abandons you, like the UN has to Palestine... then what? for someone who preaches non-violence, you sure as hell support your countries violence. [editline]01:35AM[/editline] And you never stop and wonder why lol You consider that moral because of silence? You are a fucking horrible person.[/QUOTE] THEN I would use violence. But I don't see how the UN has abandoned the Palestinians, please explain. Edit: And also, attacking civilians won't help, you'd have to get a like-minded group of people and try to attack the blockaders. [QUOTE=starpluck;22596349]Don't be smart with me. A blockade besides the Gaza blockade. Oh right. Right, Israel doesn’t have to listen to it, that however makes the Flotilla blockade buster legal.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany[/url] Listen, if the UN security council had declared it illegal, then you would have something to argue with. But it didn't, so you have nothing.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22598928]THEN I would use violence. But I don't see how the UN has abandoned the Palestinians, please explain. Edit: And also, attacking civilians won't help, you'd have to get a like-minded group of people and try to attack the blockaders. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany[/URL][/QUOTE] I said present. 1914 didn't even have international laws back then. [quote] Listen, if the UN security council had declared it illegal, then you would have something to argue with. But it didn't, so you have nothing.[/quote] Can I have some sources that the UN security council is the one that HAS to declare it illegal. Here is some more reputable organization who knows more about law then you will ever know. Red Cross, as of June 13th yesterday said it was illegal. [URL]http://www.lfpress.com/news/world/2010/06/13/14376451.html[/URL] U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights also declared it illegal less then a week ago. [URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6541JD20100605[/URL]

[QUOTE=starpluck;22599658]I said present. 1914 didn't even have international laws back then.[/quote] Ah, well I didn't know you meant present. I meant that a blockade which distinguishes between civilians and military can't exist, and it doesn't matter if there was international law or not. [QUOTE=starpluck;22599658]Can I have some sources that the UN security council is the one that HAS to declare it illegal.[/quote] As I've said, even it doesn't decide on those things, but this is the body that is the closest to have the power to do so: "he United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action." [QUOTE=starpluck;22599658]Here is some more reputable organization who knows more about law then you will ever know. Red Cross, as of June 13th yesterday said it was illegal. [URL]http://www.lfpress.com/news/world/2010/06/13/14376451.html[/URL] U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights also declared it illegal less then a week ago. [URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6541JD20100605[/URL][/QUOTE] First source is the Geneva convention, and Israel isn't bound to its laws. Now for the second source, how about some sources that the UN high commissioner for human rights can declare it illegal?

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22599711] First source is the Geneva convention, and Israel isn't bound to its laws. [/QUOTE] Actually, You are just rejecting the 4th geneva convention because it's against your blockade. I think you are following the rest. "Israel - doing as they please since may 14, 1948 "

the UN (not the UNSC) has declared it as immoral, probably illegal, and most definately overly harmful. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_report[/url] The only thing that stops the UNSC is the mere fact that the United States is Israel's bitch.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;22599757]the UN (not the UNSC) has declared it as immoral, probably illegal, and most definately overly harmful. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_report[/url] The only thing that stops the UNSC is the mere fact that the United States is Israel's bitch.[/QUOTE] That report is regarding the Gaza war, not the blockade, and is full of biased opinions and based itself mainly on Palestinians eye-witnesses. [QUOTE=Hoffa1337;22599754]Actually, You are just rejecting the 4th geneva convention because it's against your blockade. I think you are following the rest. "Israel - doing as they please since may 14, 1948 "[/QUOTE] Hey, if Israel was a signatory of said convention, I would have nothing to say, but since we aren't, we don't have to follow it.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22599845]That report is regarding the Gaza war, not the blockade, and is full of biased opinions and based itself mainly on Palestinians eye-witnesses. Hey, if Israel was a signatory of said convention, I would have nothing to say, but since we aren't, we don't have to follow it.[/QUOTE] Why do you label EVERYTHING that isn't from Israel or IDF as biased?

I'm not. I'm labeling the IDF as biased too, and most of the media in Israel. But to say the Goldstone report is't biased is just being idiotic.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22599845]That report is regarding the Gaza war, not the blockade, and is full of biased opinions and based itself mainly on Palestinians eye-witnesses. Hey, if Israel was a signatory of said convention, I would have nothing to say, but since we aren't, we don't have to follow it.[/QUOTE] "Human Rights Watch (HRW) applauded the selection of Goldstone to head the mission, saying that "Justice Goldstone's reputation for fairness and integrity is unmatched, and his investigation provides the best opportunity to address alleged violations by both Hamas and Israel"" He lead the prosecution for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda for the UNICTs. Also "The report stated that the blockade constituted a violation of Israel's obligations as an occupying power in Gaza." Page 276.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;22600264]"Human Rights Watch (HRW) applauded the selection of Goldstone to head the mission, saying that "Justice Goldstone's reputation for fairness and integrity is unmatched, and his investigation provides the best opportunity to address alleged violations by both Hamas and Israel"" He lead the prosecution for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda for the UNICTs. Also "The report stated that the blockade constituted a violation of Israel's obligations as an occupying power in Gaza." Page 276.[/QUOTE] Still biased because BurnEmDown said so :/

[QUOTE=Hoffa1337;22600274]Still biased because BurnEmDown said so :/[/QUOTE] It also never mentions the blockade, too.

Well I didn't know it mentioned it, I stand corrected. It is still extremely biased, just like the HRW organization.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22602608]Well I didn't know it mentioned it, I stand corrected. It is still extremely biased, just like the HRW organization.[/QUOTE] Biased in favour of...what? human rights OH FUCK NO

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;22602687]Biased in favour of...what? human rights OH FUCK NO[/QUOTE] human rights always twisting facts and spreading propaganda :rolleye:

[QUOTE=Hoffa1337;22602704]human rights always twisting facts and spreading propaganda :rolleye:[/QUOTE] just like Richard Goldstone that fucking unbiased, neutral and highly respected judge wait [editline]03:38PM[/editline] this thread is burnemdown at his best. everything is biased against israel, even NGOs in favour of human rights. no exception

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22599963]I'm not. I'm labeling the IDF as biased too, and most of the media in Israel. But to say the Goldstone report is't biased is just being idiotic.[/QUOTE] It's not really biased. Goldstone is a pretty prominent Jewish lawyer that approached the responsibility of creating the report with some "shock". He took on the report from a neutral standpoint. [quote] Goldstone acknowledged that he had faced a dilemma in deciding whether to accept the job, saying that it had come as "quite a shock". However, he took the view that "I can approach the daunting task I have accepted in an even-handed and impartial manner and give it the same attention that I have to situations in my own country," where his experience had been that "transparent, public investigations are very important, important particularly for the victims because it brings acknowledgement of what happened to them.[52][/quote] His report is critical of both Israel, Hamas, and other middle-eastern elements. Anyone who says the report was biased can't come to grips of having their country exposed, which of course goes back to you folk crying "biased/anti-semtic/terrorist/terrorist-sympathizer/idiot/etc" (any or all of them can do) Jesus christ, I understand you Israeli's feel like the world is out to get you, but It would help if there was some acknowledgement. Every Israeli I've come across defends their country so vehemently as if every action they took was justified.

[QUOTE=Sporkfire;22602787]It's not really biased. Goldstone is a pretty prominent Jewish lawyer that approached the responsibility of creating the report with some "shock". He took on the report from a neutral standpoint. His report is critical of both Israel, Hamas, and other middle-eastern elements. Anyone who says the report was biased can't come to grips of having their country exposed, which of course goes back to you folk crying "biased/anti-semtic/terrorist/terrorist-sympathizer/idiot/etc" (any or all of them can do)[/QUOTE] No sporkfire you are wrong, those who criticize israel are biased because israel is faultless

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;22602687]Biased in favour of...what? human rights OH FUCK NO[/QUOTE] The Government of Israel issued a 32-point preliminary analysis of the report, titled "Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza Established Pursuant to Resolution S-9/1 of the Human Rights Council". The main arguments in the analysis were the following. The resolution mandating the mission was one-sided and prejudicial and the terms of the mandate were never changed. The composition of the Mission and its conduct raised serious questions about its impartiality. Incidents selected for examination were cherry-picked for political effect. The mission displayed double standards in acceptance of evidence: treating even photogaphic evidence presented by Israel as inherently untrustworthy, except when it could be used to condemn Israel, while uncritically accepting statements by Hamas; reinterpreting or dismissing self-incriminating statements by Hamas; and selectively quoting material from sources. The report includes misstatements of fact: for example, it stated that Israel discriminated against its non-Jewish citizens in providing shelter from Palestinian rocket attacks , when the shelter was provided on the basis of proximity to the Gaza Strip and did not discriminate between Jews and non-Jews. The report contains misstatements of law: for example, its description of the Israeli appeals process is outdated. The report fails to consider the military complexities of the war, makes judgments lacking necessary knowledge, and ignores Israel's extensive efforts to maintain humanitarian standards and protect civilians. The report unjustifiably minimizes the threat of terrorism and in effect vindicates terrorist tactics. The report presents its findings as judicial determinations of guilt, despite its admission that it does not reach a judicial level of proof; it commits egregious legal errors, including unjustifiable assumptions regarding intent and commanders' states of mind, as well as misinterpretation of the willfulness requirement of responsibility under international law. The report ignores Israel's own investigations into its conduct, overlooks the many independent levels of scrutiny in Israel's judicial system, misrepresents Israel's legal mechanisms and shows disdain for democratic values. The report makes one-sided recommendations against Israel while making only token recommendations with respect to Palestinians: for example, recommending Israel compensate Palestinians for attacks without recommending Palestinians compensate Israelis for attacks. The analysis concludes that the report claims to represent international law but perverts it to serve a political agenda; that it sends a "legally unfounded message to states everywhere confronting terrorism that international law has no effective response to offer them", and that it signals to terrorist groups "that the cynical tactics of seeking to exploit civilian suffering for political ends actually pays dividends".[98]

[quote=burnemdown;22602838]the government of israel issued a 32-point preliminary analysis of the report[/quote] hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha Israel's not wrong, because Israel said so.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22602838]The Government of Israel issued a 32-point preliminary analysis of the report, titled "Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza Established Pursuant to Resolution S-9/1 of the Human Rights Council". The main arguments in the analysis were the following. The resolution mandating the mission was one-sided and prejudicial and the terms of the mandate were never changed. The composition of the Mission and its conduct raised serious questions about its impartiality. Incidents selected for examination were cherry-picked for political effect. The mission displayed double standards in acceptance of evidence: treating even photogaphic evidence presented by Israel as inherently untrustworthy, except when it could be used to condemn Israel, while uncritically accepting statements by Hamas; reinterpreting or dismissing self-incriminating statements by Hamas; and selectively quoting material from sources. The report includes misstatements of fact: for example, it stated that Israel discriminated against its non-Jewish citizens in providing shelter from Palestinian rocket attacks , when the shelter was provided on the basis of proximity to the Gaza Strip and did not discriminate between Jews and non-Jews. The report contains misstatements of law: for example, its description of the Israeli appeals process is outdated. The report fails to consider the military complexities of the war, makes judgments lacking necessary knowledge, and ignores Israel's extensive efforts to maintain humanitarian standards and protect civilians. The report unjustifiably minimizes the threat of terrorism and in effect vindicates terrorist tactics. The report presents its findings as judicial determinations of guilt, despite its admission that it does not reach a judicial level of proof; it commits egregious legal errors, including unjustifiable assumptions regarding intent and commanders' states of mind, as well as misinterpretation of the willfulness requirement of responsibility under international law. The report ignores Israel's own investigations into its conduct, overlooks the many independent levels of scrutiny in Israel's judicial system, misrepresents Israel's legal mechanisms and shows disdain for democratic values. The report makes one-sided recommendations against Israel while making only token recommendations with respect to Palestinians: for example, recommending Israel compensate Palestinians for attacks without recommending Palestinians compensate Israelis for attacks. The analysis concludes that the report claims to represent international law but perverts it to serve a political agenda; that it sends a "legally unfounded message to states everywhere confronting terrorism that international law has no effective response to offer them", and that it signals to terrorist groups "that the cynical tactics of seeking to exploit civilian suffering for political ends actually pays dividends".[98][/QUOTE] Wait hang on a second. Who are we going to trust here, a neutral organisation that has little or nothing to gain from giving a one-sided report, or a report from the FUCKING NATION IN QUESTION? This is asking a murderer his interpretation on the court case. [quote]The report makes one-sided recommendations against Israel while making only token recommendations with respect to Palestinians: for example, recommending Israel compensate Palestinians for attacks without recommending Palestinians compensate Israelis for attacks.[/quote]Yeah they should compensate the Israelis with their...rocks and...uhm. What do Palestinians have? I thought Palestine wasn't a state, and thus they can't really provide reparations? But if you're recognising them as a state, then what are you doing interfering in their domestic issues? [quote]The report fails to consider the military complexities of the war, makes judgments lacking necessary knowledge, and ignores Israel's extensive efforts to maintain humanitarian standards and protect civilians.[/quote]Casualties of war argument, also humanitarian standards including building a wall around gaza. BRILLIANT. So the Israeli report claims that the UN report was to serve political means, and yet never details what there is to gain from this, or what the political means even are. Good job Israel.